It’s an archetypal tale; a character, usually the protagonist, someone the audience is immediately draw to and identifies with, is wronged, seriously, badly, irrevocably, and then spends the rest of the narrative trying to even the score, take back something that the antagonist took from them in the beginning. I often enjoy these stories, movies in particular. Kill Bill comes to mind, as does the Korean thriller Oldboy. I just watched one tonight, The Brave One staring Jodie Foster, and while Kill Bill and Oldboy are both disturbing in their ways, I don’t think I’ve seen a revenge movie before that made me question so deeply what is beneath this archetype. Why does it resonate with people?

I think that one of the key reasons that this is such an enduring and popular story is that it appeals to our innate sense of justice. In most of these stories, the person who wrongs the protagonist is beyond justice. The “legitimate” channels are impotent, and so the protagonist has to take matters into their own hands and create justice where none exists. In some ways this is deeply satisfying. Everybody sees injustice around them, and often it seems as if the legitimate dispensers of justice are either part of the problem or helpless to effect a solution. It is cathartic to see such situations righted on the screen or in a book.

Now, the question on my mind right now, is, “Is this right?” Is the pleasure that we take from seeing injustice rectified, though the means may be illegitimate, a fault. Is it better for someone to take justice into their own flawed hands than for injustice to reign. And, what are the consequences for that person? I thought similar thoughts regarding Sin City. The premise of that movie is that this was a place where justice could not occur, and so three characters had to stand up for what was right. In the process, they are destroyed, both morally and physically, but they did the job and their sacrifice is deemed by the movie to be appropriate. They are almost, perhaps, purer heroes than someone like Superman, who is able to keep himself morally spotless while enforcing justice. These are men who are willing to sacrifice their very souls because things are not right and they only know one way to fix them. And so, I have to say my answer is “yes.” It is right to act justly where justice is not present.

But, as I said The Brave One really disturbed me in a way these other movies didn’t, because in this movie, illegitimate, person, revenge is actually favored over legitimate channels of justice. That Mercer, the moral voice of the movie, in the end does not stop Erica when he can shocked me. I didn’t see it coming, because my supposition has always been that the law is the appropriate avenue for the dispensation of justice. This movie seemed to say, “The person wronged has the right to vengeance.” In the final confrontation, Mercer tells Erica, “You don’t have the right,” to which she screams back, “YES I DO!” To which I wanted to shout back at her, “Says who?”

So, is this “new” twist on the revenge drama, the preference of personal vengeance over legitimate justice, something that has been around for a while and I’m only now seeing it, or is The Brave One the first movie to actively make a case for it?